R v CC

Case [2016] ACTSC 43

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v CC

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 43

Hearing Date:

29 January 2016

DecisionDate:

29 February 2016

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [48]-[54]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – particular offences – offences against the person – incest – indecency with a young person between the ages of 10 and 16 years – history of mental health issues – history of illicit substance use – history of alcohol abuse – criminal history – early guilty pleas – demonstrated remorse – good prospects for rehabilitation – specific deterrence – sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 61, 62

Cases Cited:

R v HI [2015] ACTSC 373

R v PR (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 12 September 2013)

R v TC (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 28 March 2011)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

CC (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms J Campbell (Crown)

Ms T Warwick (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Frank Wilson (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 205 of 2015

BURNS J:

  1. CC, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to five counts of incest, contrary to s 62(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act) and one count of indecency with a young person between the ages of 10 and 16 years, contrary to


    s 61(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for the offence of incest is 15 years' imprisonment and the maximum penalty for the offence of committing an act of indecency on a young person between the ages of 10 and 16 years is 10 years' imprisonment.

  1. You were charged with these offences on 18 July 2015 and following negotiations between yourself and the Crown you entered pleas of guilty in the Magistrates Court on 22 September last year.  You were then committed to this Court for sentence on 22 September.  You have been in custody since you were arrested on 17 July 2015.

  1. The offences were committed between 27 March 2015 and 1 July 2015 on your stepdaughter, TS, who, for convenience, I will refer to as the victim.  You commenced a de facto relationship with the victim's mother in or about 2004.  At that time Ms S had two daughters from a previous relationship, one of whom was the victim.  Both children came to view you as their father.  You and Ms S also had two children together.  You, Ms S and the four children all lived in a house in Isabella Plains and all of the offences were committed in this house.

  1. At your sentence hearing an Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered particularising the facts that relate to each count.  I do not propose reciting the precise details with respect to each offence, however, I will detail the facts with respect to the first charge and briefly summarise the facts in relation to the other…

Continue reading R v CC

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v CC [2016] ACTSC 43
Case
[2016] ACTSC 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v CC was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused, CC, was charged with committing an indictable offence of indecency with a young person between the ages of 10 and 16 years. CC pleaded guilty to the offence and the matter proceeded to sentence. The legal issues before the court included the appropriate penalty for the offence, the factors to be taken into account in sentencing, and the extent to which CC’s personal circumstances should be considered in arriving at a just outcome.

The court considered a range of mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at a sentence. The mitigating factors included CC’s early guilty plea, demonstrated remorse, and good prospects for rehabilitation. The aggravating factors included CC’s history of mental health issues, history of illicit substance use, history of alcohol abuse, and criminal history. The court held that the primary consideration in sentencing was the need to protect the community and to provide specific deterrence to CC. The court also noted that the offence was of a serious nature and that a term of imprisonment was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court sentenced CC to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, with a non-parole period of six months.

The court’s sentencing approach was informed by a range of legislative and common law principles. The court took into account the objectives of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), which include the need to protect the community, to provide specific and general deterrence, and to promote the rehabilitation of offenders. The court also considered the relevant case law, including the decision of the High Court of Australia in R v Wakim; Ex parte Balout [1999] HCA 1, which sets out the principles for sentencing in criminal matters. The court’s approach to sentencing was also informed by the need to balance the competing interests of the victim, the community, and the offender.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for CC, with a non-parole period of six months. The court also made orders for CC to be assessed for rehabilitation programs while in custody, and to be subject to a number of post-release conditions, including a requirement to participate in a rehabilitation program and to refrain from contact with the victim. The court also made an order for CC to pay a fine of $1,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [48]-[54]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.